Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 08:21:46 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     cristian.birsan@microchip.com
Cc:     linux@roeck-us.net, heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] usb: typec: Add driver for Microchip sama7g5
 tcpc
Message-ID: <YGQU+g8J6gZhn13X@kroah.com>
References: <20210330205442.981649-1-cristian.birsan@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210330205442.981649-1-cristian.birsan@microchip.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:54:40PM +0300, cristian.birsan@microchip.com wrote:
> From: Cristian Birsan <cristian.birsan@microchip.com>
> 
> This patch set adds initial driver support for Microchip USB Type-C Port
> Controller (TCPC) embedded in sama7g5 SoC.
> 
> The controller does not implement power delivery and the driver uses dummy
> functions to register the port with TCPM. The current silicon version is
> not able to trigger interrupts so the driver will poll for changes on
> CC1/CC2 lines.
> 
> Support for sink is implemented and tested with an USB device. The plan is
> to extend the driver and add source support.

Why are these marked "RFC"?

Do you really not think they should be accepted?  Why not, what is left
to do with them?

I do not normally review "RFC" patches as the authors do not think they
should be merged, and we have plenty of patches that are being asked to
be merged already :)

thanks,

greg k-h